| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... 06:30 - Feb 8 with 14687 views | ScottishEddie |
...? |  |
| |  |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:31 - Feb 9 with 1495 views | blackflyingswan |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 07:39 - Feb 8 by Jackfath |
Put one foot in front of the other and follow the bloke in front of you. |
Superb .   |  | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:32 - Feb 9 with 1492 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:22 - Feb 9 by CorrectSir |
Yeah so almost a third of our PL history was under them after they took over what looked like a club on the way out, I was almost certain we would be relegated in that first year and was incredulous that we almost survived yet again the season after. We looked hopeless for the majority of that season prior to them coming in, I’m sure it was a good last part of the season which secured our survival.
But anyway, I am still struggling to understand how people want the Americans to be running the club right now. Seems an odd time to protest when nobody can really have any complaints with how things are being handled understanding we have overheads to service. |
They came in during pre season, not halfway through. The reason we looked hopeless for the first half of that season was the Bob Bradley appointment. | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:37 - Feb 9 with 1463 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:31 - Feb 9 by CorrectSir |
So hold on for an unknown buyer that may never come along, to shares that are odds on to be worth millions less any season now?
That just seems unrealistic to me. I’d have sold as would most others if they are being honest. But again I don’t know what these owners are doing that is so terrible that needs to be changed when we know that all other realistic owners will either do the same or far worse. I don’t believe in the oil tycoon scenario trotted out on here.
But in all honesty, whether they sold or not or held on is largely irrelevant, the result of the relegation and the shortfall would still be the same in all probability. I don’t see what changes with any scenario apart from one on which we make up a scenario of perfect owners coming along - which is something we are creating because it didn’t exist. |
I agree with that last paragraph. They haven’t done anything substantial the old board wouldn’t have been able to. I can understand why they sold from a personal point of view, but what have the new owners done that the old wouldn’t have been capable of? | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:39 - Feb 9 with 1447 views | Cooperman |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:37 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I agree with that last paragraph. They haven’t done anything substantial the old board wouldn’t have been able to. I can understand why they sold from a personal point of view, but what have the new owners done that the old wouldn’t have been capable of? |
Supporting cashflow is one area that we would have struggled. |  |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:50 - Feb 9 with 1396 views | Neath_Jack |
Absolutely superb posting by T2C and E20 again.
There is not a poster on here that can reply, especially to E20's well constructed posts and counter what he is saying.
Of course you'll get the usual suspects on here writing a couple of words to try and provoke or be funny, but not one, not even 247 who's tidy poster.
And the Chairman of the Trust should hang his head in shame for continuing to shut him down.
I'd love for someone to be able to take his post apart and make me think differently, but i just can't see it happening.
The debate will be shut down one way or another. |  |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:56 - Feb 9 with 1372 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:39 - Feb 9 by Cooperman |
Supporting cashflow is one area that we would have struggled. |
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression they were lending the club money at the same interest rate as the previous owners were getting from the banks? | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:02 - Feb 9 with 1335 views | Darran |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:56 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression they were lending the club money at the same interest rate as the previous owners were getting from the banks? |
Where did you read/hear same interest rate?
Serious question. |  |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:16 - Feb 9 with 1300 views | Cooperman |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:56 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression they were lending the club money at the same interest rate as the previous owners were getting from the banks? |
I was referring to sizes of loan more so than interest rates. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:18 - Feb 9 with 1296 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:02 - Feb 9 by Darran |
Where did you read/hear same interest rate?
Serious question. |
I’m only going from memory, but I’m pretty sure one of the trust representatives. | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:19 - Feb 9 with 1288 views | Darran |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:18 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I’m only going from memory, but I’m pretty sure one of the trust representatives. |
Ok. | |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:45 - Feb 9 with 1261 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:16 - Feb 9 by Cooperman |
I was referring to sizes of loan more so than interest rates. |
That’s quite possibly correct now. It wouldn’t have been while we were a PL club | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:58 - Feb 9 with 1227 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:50 - Feb 9 by Neath_Jack |
Absolutely superb posting by T2C and E20 again.
There is not a poster on here that can reply, especially to E20's well constructed posts and counter what he is saying.
Of course you'll get the usual suspects on here writing a couple of words to try and provoke or be funny, but not one, not even 247 who's tidy poster.
And the Chairman of the Trust should hang his head in shame for continuing to shut him down.
I'd love for someone to be able to take his post apart and make me think differently, but i just can't see it happening.
The debate will be shut down one way or another. |
The danger there, is you just end up believing everything E20 says, because he is exceptionally good at this kind of debate.
The general theme behind the last page or so is whether or not the Americans have done a good job since coming in. He’s that good at constructing arguments, he’ll have people thinking they are great owners within a couple of pages.
Edit - I don’t think he should be banned either. [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 12:59]
| | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:59 - Feb 9 with 1217 views | LikeABook |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:50 - Feb 9 by Neath_Jack |
Absolutely superb posting by T2C and E20 again.
There is not a poster on here that can reply, especially to E20's well constructed posts and counter what he is saying.
Of course you'll get the usual suspects on here writing a couple of words to try and provoke or be funny, but not one, not even 247 who's tidy poster.
And the Chairman of the Trust should hang his head in shame for continuing to shut him down.
I'd love for someone to be able to take his post apart and make me think differently, but i just can't see it happening.
The debate will be shut down one way or another. |
Thanks NJ and great to see you posting again.
Yes we are 5 pages in and still nobody any the wiser what exactly people are wanting to change just focusing on irrelevant side topics or the anecdotal.
You are spot on though and right on cue, banned by the Trust for daring to speak sense on the subject on the medium that the Trust chairman urged militant groups to use as a propaganda tool and yet the subject shamefully shut down again.
So I am guessing, in the face of no explanation and using the logic available, we have to assume that this protest is about them deciding to not plunge the club into unserviceable debt then? | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:05 - Feb 9 with 1196 views | LikeABook |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 12:58 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
The danger there, is you just end up believing everything E20 says, because he is exceptionally good at this kind of debate.
The general theme behind the last page or so is whether or not the Americans have done a good job since coming in. He’s that good at constructing arguments, he’ll have people thinking they are great owners within a couple of pages.
Edit - I don’t think he should be banned either. [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 12:59]
|
I was just making the point that I don’t believe it was an accelerated decline, it seemed pretty linear to me. We looked terrible the year before they took over, slightly worse the year after and worse the year after that. We were on a slope - it was the reason they sold and got out when they did.
But it’s anecdotal and can’t be proven so seems irrelevant to the point (especially when you have said it isn’t about relegation) where people are protesting now about the way they are running the club, so protesting for change presumably? So what change is being sought? Do they even know?
The Americans have come in and spent a shed load of surplus transfer cash backing their managers and also now cutting cloth accordingly after relegation. I am just struggling to see what it is people want exactly.
Edit - and of course I shouldn’t be banned, everybody knows that - but also everybody knows why I am too, and it’s covenient currently. They are terrified of someone able to dismantle their propaganda and call things as they are. When you are trying to control rhetoric, the above is a terrifying prospect to that goal... as is open and free debate, of course. [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 13:40]
| | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:07 - Feb 9 with 1191 views | Loyal |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 06:58 - Feb 9 by builthjack |
How's your dad ? |
Seems to be a fair few new posters with the same diction and grammatical
structure ... |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:10 - Feb 9 with 1175 views | BillyChong |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:05 - Feb 9 by LikeABook |
I was just making the point that I don’t believe it was an accelerated decline, it seemed pretty linear to me. We looked terrible the year before they took over, slightly worse the year after and worse the year after that. We were on a slope - it was the reason they sold and got out when they did.
But it’s anecdotal and can’t be proven so seems irrelevant to the point (especially when you have said it isn’t about relegation) where people are protesting now about the way they are running the club, so protesting for change presumably? So what change is being sought? Do they even know?
The Americans have come in and spent a shed load of surplus transfer cash backing their managers and also now cutting cloth accordingly after relegation. I am just struggling to see what it is people want exactly.
Edit - and of course I shouldn’t be banned, everybody knows that - but also everybody knows why I am too, and it’s covenient currently. They are terrified of someone able to dismantle their propaganda and call things as they are. When you are trying to control rhetoric, the above is a terrifying prospect to that goal... as is open and free debate, of course. [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 13:40]
|
Yes, surplus transfer cash. What about their own investment? | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:15 - Feb 9 with 1149 views | LikeABook |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:37 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I agree with that last paragraph. They haven’t done anything substantial the old board wouldn’t have been able to. I can understand why they sold from a personal point of view, but what have the new owners done that the old wouldn’t have been capable of? |
The ability to service cashflow problems with no strict time constraints on repaying, greater wealth of knowledge on how to increase income - acquiring stadium income and naming rights being some of the main ones , something they also had experience of at DC United.
But why they sold, and the benefits of that is also irrelevant to the subject which is what is it that is wanting to change with the way they are running the club that is promoting some to want to protest for change. | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:17 - Feb 9 with 1138 views | SoberBaker |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:50 - Feb 9 by Neath_Jack |
Absolutely superb posting by T2C and E20 again.
There is not a poster on here that can reply, especially to E20's well constructed posts and counter what he is saying.
Of course you'll get the usual suspects on here writing a couple of words to try and provoke or be funny, but not one, not even 247 who's tidy poster.
And the Chairman of the Trust should hang his head in shame for continuing to shut him down.
I'd love for someone to be able to take his post apart and make me think differently, but i just can't see it happening.
The debate will be shut down one way or another. |
Perfectly put.
I never thought our fanbase would reach the levels of entitlement we are witnessing today. It's Geordie-esque in its bell-whiffery.
Big dose of perspective is required. |  |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:21 - Feb 9 with 1100 views | _ |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 11:56 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression they were lending the club money at the same interest rate as the previous owners were getting from the banks? |
Of course it was, it was Stu MacDonald and anyone not knowing that I a clueless piece of shit and thick as Fack. |  |
| |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:25 - Feb 9 with 1086 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:15 - Feb 9 by LikeABook |
The ability to service cashflow problems with no strict time constraints on repaying, greater wealth of knowledge on how to increase income - acquiring stadium income and naming rights being some of the main ones , something they also had experience of at DC United.
But why they sold, and the benefits of that is also irrelevant to the subject which is what is it that is wanting to change with the way they are running the club that is promoting some to want to protest for change. |
I think it’s too late for ‘how they are running the club now’. What they are doing now is a direct consequence of the way they ran it the last two seasons.
Relegation is either inevitable or it’s not. I agree that it pretty much is, it’s just a matter of time. Panic spending on the likes of Bony, Clucas and Ayew is a big part of the reason we almost lost Dan James two weeks ago. | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:26 - Feb 9 with 1079 views | LikeABook |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:10 - Feb 9 by BillyChong |
Yes, surplus transfer cash. What about their own investment? |
What about it?
Any money of theirs they put in will be debt to the club. Kaplan and Levien only own a small % of the club.
1) we as a club do not want unserviceable loans
2) why should they put in their own money? We have gone decades without owners doing that, it’s not what owners should do, it’s a misconception. I don’t remember many people protesting that Jenkins wasn’t putting his own money in and loved the fact we were prudent, it was in fact a point of great pride - what changed?
3) Why haven’t the Trust put their 800k in to the transfer kitty? They probably own more than Levien. (Not that I personally think they should of course). [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 13:50]
| | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:31 - Feb 9 with 1062 views | LikeABook |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:25 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
I think it’s too late for ‘how they are running the club now’. What they are doing now is a direct consequence of the way they ran it the last two seasons.
Relegation is either inevitable or it’s not. I agree that it pretty much is, it’s just a matter of time. Panic spending on the likes of Bony, Clucas and Ayew is a big part of the reason we almost lost Dan James two weeks ago. |
So we are happy with the way they are running it now?
...And protesting in the hope we can go back in time and accept relegation instead of trying to stay up by signing who the manager and DoF wanted?
I just don’t get it still.
For clarity, Dan James would probably be rotting in the development squad with fans moaning he is being offered a contract had we not been relegated or indeed had enough funds by not investing in Bony etc to either play the likes of Narsingh or bring in more. He wouldn’t even be on anyone’s radar. | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 14:12 - Feb 9 with 1010 views | jack247 |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 13:31 - Feb 9 by LikeABook |
So we are happy with the way they are running it now?
...And protesting in the hope we can go back in time and accept relegation instead of trying to stay up by signing who the manager and DoF wanted?
I just don’t get it still.
For clarity, Dan James would probably be rotting in the development squad with fans moaning he is being offered a contract had we not been relegated or indeed had enough funds by not investing in Bony etc to either play the likes of Narsingh or bring in more. He wouldn’t even be on anyone’s radar. |
Happy may be stretching the point a bit, unless you mean in the sense of being happy with a criminal who was behaving in jail. But yes, I understand they have little alternative as a result of the way the club has been run over the last couple of seasons.
You’re right about Dan James, that’s not the point though. The contingency plan for relegation was to clear the decks and rely on hungry young players. He’s pretty much the poster boy for that ethos. | | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 14:21 - Feb 9 with 991 views | LikeABook |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 14:12 - Feb 9 by jack247 |
Happy may be stretching the point a bit, unless you mean in the sense of being happy with a criminal who was behaving in jail. But yes, I understand they have little alternative as a result of the way the club has been run over the last couple of seasons.
You’re right about Dan James, that’s not the point though. The contingency plan for relegation was to clear the decks and rely on hungry young players. He’s pretty much the poster boy for that ethos. |
No, happy as in the best possible realistic scenario, not sure how else you would want them to run the club currently?
We haven’t managed to clear the decks, that’s the problem. We still have many ‘marquee’ players on the books but on loan, we are still liable for their contracts in deduction on the loan time. The inability to secure permanent transfers for those players meant that other options had to be looked at.
I wouldn’t want James to go at all, but can see why he would have to. Also important to note that this situation is as a result of our WHOLE 7 seasons of PL football, not just the last few seasons of it. Without the £5.5m Hernandez deal there would be no initial £13m Bony deal, without Bony deal there would be no Ayew or Gomis deal, without those there would be no Clucas deal etc etc. things gradually spiral.
It was a chain of events that increase the values across the whole squad until there is no longer any room for error. If you get to a point where failure is inevitable, it means you have had the luxury of prolonged success. It’s the by-product of an overwhelming positive - not a negative. [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 14:25]
| | | |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 17:44 - Feb 9 with 900 views | Loyal |
| Are The Trust endorsing this 1000+ protsest... on 14:21 - Feb 9 by LikeABook |
No, happy as in the best possible realistic scenario, not sure how else you would want them to run the club currently?
We haven’t managed to clear the decks, that’s the problem. We still have many ‘marquee’ players on the books but on loan, we are still liable for their contracts in deduction on the loan time. The inability to secure permanent transfers for those players meant that other options had to be looked at.
I wouldn’t want James to go at all, but can see why he would have to. Also important to note that this situation is as a result of our WHOLE 7 seasons of PL football, not just the last few seasons of it. Without the £5.5m Hernandez deal there would be no initial £13m Bony deal, without Bony deal there would be no Ayew or Gomis deal, without those there would be no Clucas deal etc etc. things gradually spiral.
It was a chain of events that increase the values across the whole squad until there is no longer any room for error. If you get to a point where failure is inevitable, it means you have had the luxury of prolonged success. It’s the by-product of an overwhelming positive - not a negative. [Post edited 9 Feb 2019 14:25]
|
How can you see why James would be sold if you have no idea of the club's financial
Position other than the word of its owners who purchased their shares in a questionnable and underhand manner ? | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
